📅 Original date posted:2016-02-10
📝 Original message:I am actually suggesting 1 hardfork, not 2. However, different rules are
activated at different time to enhance safety and reduce disruption. The
advantage is people are required to upgrade once, not twice. Any clients
designed for stage 2 should also be ready for stage 3.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Corallo [mailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 February, 2016 06:15
To: jl2012 at xbt.hk; bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger
block size
As for your stages idea, I generally like the idea (and mentioned it may be
a good idea in my proposal), but am worried about scheduling two hard-forks
at once....Lets do our first hard-fork first with the things we think we
will need anytime in the visible future that we have reasonable designs for
now, and talk about a second one after we've seen what did/didnt blow up
with the first one.
Anyway, this generally seems reasonable - it looks like most of this matches
up with what I said more specifically in my mail yesterday, with the
addition of timewarp fixes, which we should probably add, and Luke's header
changes, which I need to spend some more time thinking about.
Matt
jl2012 at xbt.hk [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kc…wjfw4
2023-06-07 17:49:03
in reply to nevent1q…7dxr
Author Public Key
npub1kc0zulxt7j4a0ayhzhrz7jk84y7tm4026qcky7w97hlfkxxap24qnwjfw4Published at
2023-06-07 17:49:03Event JSON
{
"id": "c01875f15afe6c3c63b10ee1ea1696737eacf34ca66afc4f4f20f2c59f0d5e3c",
"pubkey": "b61e2e7ccbf4abd7f49715c62f4ac7a93cbdd5ead0316279c5f5fe9b18dd0aaa",
"created_at": 1686160143,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"869e2a0a3ffc6930e3a7215c092a59e1a7fe633ff747428c2e40cb2fadb4766c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"54c1a00bd5b63ac5c8471c6cbbd7ae9397deabadc8ac062ab9d6f671b78c7545",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-02-10\n📝 Original message:I am actually suggesting 1 hardfork, not 2. However, different rules are\nactivated at different time to enhance safety and reduce disruption. The\nadvantage is people are required to upgrade once, not twice. Any clients\ndesigned for stage 2 should also be ready for stage 3.\n\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Matt Corallo [mailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com] \nSent: Wednesday, 10 February, 2016 06:15\nTo: jl2012 at xbt.hk; bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\nSubject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger\nblock size\n\nAs for your stages idea, I generally like the idea (and mentioned it may be\na good idea in my proposal), but am worried about scheduling two hard-forks\nat once....Lets do our first hard-fork first with the things we think we\nwill need anytime in the visible future that we have reasonable designs for\nnow, and talk about a second one after we've seen what did/didnt blow up\nwith the first one.\n\nAnyway, this generally seems reasonable - it looks like most of this matches\nup with what I said more specifically in my mail yesterday, with the\naddition of timewarp fixes, which we should probably add, and Luke's header\nchanges, which I need to spend some more time thinking about.\n\nMatt",
"sig": "1fb9337f3aba752e2b8fa7978e35e38cfad3ed243363c6bfbe692040bd18a2749189fb301f748904868b1e36da44833c31eb36d79683aad7cc11cd8dbb3c4d93"
}